Forum:Speculation Pages
There has been a lot of talk about the speculation pages and the community needs to weigh in on the matter. Dr.F has the best idea for speculation on upcomming games on a wiki bar none. It allows information to come in from multiple sources, pages to be created for free, gives a conduit for millions of people online who are excited about the game, and allows the community to build on something before we get any real information. Not to mention, it is fun as hell. If borderlands has an open conduit for speculation... Why do you think we are getting so many hits? If you truly believe that speculation cannot exist on a wiki, then you have to either delete stuff I want to look at, or make a blank page so it is a "talk" page. Are you guys nuts? Why did you want to edit on borderlands 2 in my forum, yet no one wants to speculate about the game? Anyway... There it is 12:51, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Speculation vs. editing on Borderlands 2 are different matters altogether. It's one thing to post a source pertaining to a recent interview, and post factual information on a page. It's another to say "Well I think this would make sense in the game." and post it to a page. One belongs in article mainspace. The other does not. 13:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC) : Do you propose deleting the pages? 13:44, February 10, 2012 (UTC) No. All of the pages concerning borderlands 2 have some sort of factual information behind them. All of them have one, or more sources behind them, making them fact and valid contributions to the wiki in their current form. I propose deleting everything that isn't backed up by a link, and cold hard facts. 13:51, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Then we will have many more blank pages on Borderlands 2 than we have right now. You have to understand the flow of the online community. You also have to respect wording of speculation. These can both be done easily as well as "some" clean up of these pages and they can be kept until needed for facts. 14:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC) No, we won't. All of the pages have at least something on them backed up by at least one interview with GBX(although not every page has it's source listed. But the main BL2 page does, concerning each article), and if we don't have factual information concerning an entity? Fine. Leave it blank. It's better than posting unsubstantiated drivel. 14:12, February 10, 2012 (UTC) By unsubstantiated drivel I suppose you mean speculation. Would creating a blank main page so we can talk about it work? It seems counter productive at the moment, it is in essence a promoted talk page because there is nothing else out there. but hey... if you don't want to keep it??? Hold on... I will do what Dr.F has not taken the time to do... he was just telling you not to change the authors intent (it is not your speculation to change). 14:26, February 10, 2012 (UTC) I didn't change the author's intent. I combed their contribution for spelling and grammatical errors, second person pronouns and re-structured if need be. Everything the user contributed was there. Dr.F was telling me to leave the poorly written post as it was, errors and all. That's where I disagreed. 14:32, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Ok lets take that one to your talk page. Let the community weigh in on speculation pages in general. 14:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :Robot, stop jumping from one page to another. You could atleast take a breather for a little while so someone else can try to state their opinion on the subject. Just give it a rest man. 14:44, February 10, 2012 (UTC) My concern about NOhara24's wikifying speculation is that what was once obviously speculation from a less-than-skilled anon is transformed by an experienced editor into something that looks like a cold hard fact, giving it much more credibility: Case in point. I'd be much more comfortable with this if the wikifying also included the standard words "maybe", as well as a "fact" tag. EDIT: Turns out it actually is a fact. Bad exemple, but I guess you get the point :/ IMO, speculation should be handled the same as an un-sourced pop culture reference: With extreme hostility :) happypal (talk • ) 15:18, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Worth noting, the UC did cite the Novel spin-off. 15:20, February 10, 2012 (UTC) We have a mechanism for wild-assed unsanctioned speculation unblessed by an editor's touch: talk pages. We could use them. Talk pages are hideous, much like galvanic anodes in a corrosion control system, but we're used to that, and we know that they help the overall system. Dämmerung 15:24, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Are you all seriously telling me that you have no idea what to do with pages that have a tag on them? It is truely not understandable to you? They have to be talk pages so that you can understand what to do? Its simple... lets go on other wikis and create blank pages so that we can successfully make any talk we want. The need for a talk page when there is no informaton is obserd. Look, they are talk pages until we get something concrete. They are not hurting ANYONE, They are TEMPORARY, They can be replaced EXTREMELY easily the moment we need them for something else. If you feel that we must make them into talk pages so that they fit your idea of what a wiki is, then where are your suggestions for the main page? YOUR RIGHT!!! you pretty much have NO suggestions for anything other than 1. making the speculation pages harder to find, 2. creating a bunch of blank pages. It is not the most ideal situation but when the only thing going around is bitching because no one knows what to do, I guess I will have to step in and take over the speculation pages from Dr.F and show you all what can be done with them. :-->For what it's worth, I find that idea retarded. Why can't we have an actual content page, with verified information, and a talk page for speculation? Are we a wiki, or are we not a wiki? We aren't here to cater to the needs of delusional fanboys. happypal (talk • ) 20:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :-->+1 21:09, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :-->I completely apologize for being so disrespectful. Online communities LOVE free space and I would like to see wiki allow it temporarily. Sorry it turned into a one man crusade. 05:17, February 12, 2012 (UTC) If anyone has a problem with the night stalkers page as it sits now, you better hash it out now. 19:40, February 10, 2012 (UTC) I guess I'm with NOhara on this one. I'd leave the main pages for the most factual information you can get on a pre-released game and do any speculation on the talk pages. If there isn't a talk page for your particular brand of speculation then do it on the talk page of BL2 or start a forum. Also, to add some perspective to this thing, it won't really matter once the game is released. Just.kevin 21:41, February 10, 2012 (UTC) :Agreed^...To be honest, it was not Dr. F that put the notice on the Night Stalkers page. That was actually me, I meant to place it on all of the BL2 pages but had not gotten around to it. :Anyways, to make everyone happy I vote that the BL2 pages be locked for the time being until a mutual understanding of their layouts can be agreed upon. eh? 21:48, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Good on you, Raz. 22:04, February 10, 2012 (UTC) Ricey's Short Summary of This Article 3 Choices: 1. Allow speculation to exist on articles, as long as the editor has facts to support it. We will evaluate the connection between the facts and speculation. Whether or not we agree with it is another matter. 2. As long as Randy didnt say it, we will leave it OFF the page and it goes to the talk pages. My Opinion: Step 1: 'Not-my-fault-he-did-that' Disclaimer on top: "The information included in this article is pure speculation and does not represent the opinions and views of the Borderlands wiki, synsops..." Step 2: Leave it to the dogs. Step 3: Profit! Nohara's eyes burns less from not having to read rediculous edits, Robot's conscience/dedication to the rights of UCs is no longer applicable. Razls has less "OMG WHY DID YOU GUYS REMOVE MY AWESOME EDIT YOU GUYS SUCK" forum posts to archive. Doc spends less time settling these disputes. UCs gets hit by the banhammer less... -- 18:04, February 11, 2012 (UTC)